Can we wait to discuss this in the draft's mailing list if/when it's accepted? That way it's archived there and everyone interested in it can participate. (Also, I'm not certain the number will be 100, but it looks like it will.)
-- : Derick ---------------------------------------------------------------- On Tue, 2009-09-08 at 03:14 +0300, Abdulaziz Ghuloum wrote: > [redirecting to ikarus-users] > > On Sep 8, 2009, at 2:43 AM, Derick Eddington wrote: > > > If/when they accept it, as a draft at the SRFI website. If you want > > to > > look at it now, it's revision 27 at > > https://code.launchpad.net/~derick-eddington/+junk/library-files > > So, on the one hand, you say: > If a library's name includes a version then its file name must > include the version. > > Then you say: > A file without a version matches a library reference regardless > of its version reference > > I object to the first rule. I think a library should be allowed > to have a version even if its file name does not have a version. > Why? I always put (foo) in foo.sls. I don't want to rename the > file every time I change the version. If you insist on making > R6RS library versions more difficult, then I won't use them. > Oh! Thanks! Never mind then. :-) > > I still think you should've drafted the SRFI without mention of > versions, or just put versions is the Issues section and let > some bright person solve it for the rest of us. > > Aziz,,,
